Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- 5 Victim Decision-Making
- 6 Bystanders’ Crime Reporting Decisions
- 7 Pretrial Publicity’s Effects on Jurors’ and Judges’ Decisions
- 8 Police Decisions Involved in Collecting Eyewitness Identification Evidence
- 9 Decisions Related to Miranda Rights
- 10 Judges’ Daubert Decisions
- 11 The Psychology of Confession Decision-Making During Police Interrogation
- 12 Plea Bargaining
- 13 Forensic Science Decision-Making
- 14 Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators
- 15 Interviewing Suspects in Criminal Investigations
- 16 Prosecutorial Decision-Making in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse
- 17 Decision-Making About Restoration of Defendants Who Are Incompetent to Stand Trial
- 18 Clinical Decision-Making Regarding Criminal Responsibility
- 19 Decision-Making Regarding Child Victims and Witnesses
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
12 - Plea Bargaining
Understanding the Decision-Making Processes of Plea Negotiation
from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- 5 Victim Decision-Making
- 6 Bystanders’ Crime Reporting Decisions
- 7 Pretrial Publicity’s Effects on Jurors’ and Judges’ Decisions
- 8 Police Decisions Involved in Collecting Eyewitness Identification Evidence
- 9 Decisions Related to Miranda Rights
- 10 Judges’ Daubert Decisions
- 11 The Psychology of Confession Decision-Making During Police Interrogation
- 12 Plea Bargaining
- 13 Forensic Science Decision-Making
- 14 Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators
- 15 Interviewing Suspects in Criminal Investigations
- 16 Prosecutorial Decision-Making in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse
- 17 Decision-Making About Restoration of Defendants Who Are Incompetent to Stand Trial
- 18 Clinical Decision-Making Regarding Criminal Responsibility
- 19 Decision-Making Regarding Child Victims and Witnesses
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Plea bargaining does not occur in a vacuum. There are several actors (e.g., prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendants) directly involved with plea negotiations and plea decisions. As approximately 95 percent of state and federal convictions result from guilty pleas, the decision-making process that defendants and other actors undergo during plea negotiations is important to understand. This chapter will address the unique and overlapping theoretical, practical, cognitive, and social influence factors that underlie the plea negotiation process and ultimate plea decision. Specifically, this chapter will focus on negotiations – particularly how attorneys approach negotiation ideologically and practically – and the power dynamics present when two or more actors attempt to influence each other. Furthermore, we will discuss the basic social (e.g., obedience to authority) and cognitive (e.g., heuristics) processes that drive defendant decision-making when interacting with prosecutors and defense attorneys. Finally, policy implications and future directions for research will be discussed throughout the chapter.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 178 - 192Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Alkon, C. (2017). Hard bargaining in plea bargaining: When do prosecutors cross the line? Nevada Law Journal, 17(2), 401–428.Google Scholar
Alkon, C., & Schneider, A. (2021). How to be better plea bargainer. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 66, 65–106.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W. (1968). The prosecutor’s role in plea bargaining. The University of Chicago Law Review, 36(1), 50–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/1598832.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W. (1979). Plea bargaining and its history. Columbia Law Review, 79(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122051.Google Scholar
Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review, 117(8), 2464–2547.Google Scholar
Birke, R. (1999). Reconciling loss aversion and guilty pleas. Utah Law Review, 1(1), 205–254.Google Scholar
Bordens, K. S., & Bassett, J. (1985). The plea bargaining process from the defendant’s perspective: A field investigation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0602_1.Google Scholar
Brady v. United States, 397 US 742 (1970).Google Scholar
Bram v. United States, 168 US 532 (1897).Google Scholar
Caldwell, H. (2011). Coercive plea bargaining: The unrecognized scourge of the justice system. Catholic University Law Review, 61(1), 63–96.Google Scholar
Dean, M. D., & McKelvey, R. (2013). The basics of plea negotiation: A dual perspective. Criminal Justice, 28(3), 52–77.Google Scholar
Dervan, L. E. (2012). Bargained justice: Plea-bargaining’s innocence problem and the Brady safety-valve. Utah Law Review, 1(1), 51–97.Google Scholar
Dervan, L. E. (2019). Arriving at a system of pleas: The history and state of plea bargaining. In Edkins, V. A. & Redlich, A. D. (Eds.), A system of pleas: Social sciences contributions to the real legal system (pp. 11–23). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Du, Y. (2017). The role of collective efficacy in defendant’s acceptance of plea bargaining: A perspective on housing density. Sociology and Criminology, 5(2), 1000174. https://doi.org/10.4172/2375-4435.1000174.Google Scholar
Edkins, V. A. (2011). Defense attorney plea recommendations and client race: Does zealous representation apply equally to all? Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9254-0.Google Scholar
Edkins, V. A., & Dervan, L. E. (2018). Freedom now or a future later: Pitting the lasting implications of collateral consequences against pretrial detention in decisions to plead guilty. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 204–215.Google Scholar
Edkins, V., & Redlich, A. D. (2019) (Eds.). A system of pleas: Social science’s contribution to the real legal system. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farole, D. J., & Langton, L. (2010). Census of public defender offices, 2007 [Special Report]. Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/clpdo07.txt.Google Scholar
French, J. R., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Gershowitz, A. M., & Killinger, L. R. (2011). The state (never) rests: How excessive prosecutorial caseloads harm criminal defendants. Northwestern University Law Review, 105(1), 261–302.Google Scholar
Gifford, D. G. (1983). Meaningful reform of plea bargaining: The control of prosecutorial discretion. University of Illinois Law Review, 1, 37–98.Google Scholar
Gregory, W. L., Mowen, J. C., & Linder, D. E. (1978). Social psychology and plea bargaining: Applications, methodology, and theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1521–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1521.Google Scholar
Helm, R. K., Reyna, V. F., Franz, A. A., et al. (2018). Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: Attorney perspectives on guilt, innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(9), 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1457672.Google Scholar
Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2018). Investigating predictors of true and false guilty pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 42(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000297.Google Scholar
Henderson, K. S., & Shteynberg, R. V. (2020). Plea decision-making: The influence of attorney expertise, trustworthiness, and recommendation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(6), 527–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1696801.Google Scholar
Lande, J. (2014). Framework for advancing negotiation theory: Implications from study of how lawyers reach agreement in pretrial litigation. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16(1), 1–62.Google Scholar
Lee, J. G., Jaynes, C. M., & Ropp, J. (2021). Satisfaction, legitimacy, and guilty pleas: How perceptions and attorneys affect defendant decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 38, 1095–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2020.1786147.Google Scholar
Luna, S. (2022). Defining coercion: An application in interrogation and plea negotiation contexts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000345.Google Scholar
Luna, S., & Redlich, A. D. (2020). The decision to provide discovery: An examination of policies and guilty pleas. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09403-z.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2011, July). The devil’s bargain: How plea agreements, never contemplated by the framers, undermine justice. Reason. https://reason.com/archives/2011/07/05/the-devils-bargain.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C., Schneider, A. K., & Love, L. P. (2020). Negotiation: Processes for problem solving. Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Norris, R. J., & Redlich, A. D. (2013). Seeking justice, compromising truth criminal admissions and the prisoner’s dilemma. Albany Law Review, 77(3), 1005–1038.Google Scholar
Ortman, W. (2020). When plea bargaining became normal. Boston University Law Review, 100(4), 1435–1500.Google Scholar
Petersen, N. (2019). Do detainees plead guilty faster? A survival analysis of pretrial detention and the timing of guilty pleas. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31, 1015–1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419838020.Google Scholar
Rapping, J. A. (2012). Who’s guarding the henhouse? How the American prosecutor came to devour those he is sworn to protect. Washburn Law Journal, 51(3), 513–570.Google Scholar
Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In Steiner, I. D. & Fishbein, M. (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371–382). Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D., Bibas, S., Edkins, V. A., & Madon, S. (2017). The psychology of defendant plea decision making. American Psychologist, 72(4), 339–352.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D., & Bonventre, C. L. (2015). Content and comprehensibility of juvenile and adult tender-of-plea forms: Implications for knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 39(2), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000118.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D., & Ozdogru, A. A. (2009). Alford pleas in the age of innocence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.876.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D., Zottoli, T., Dezember, A., et al. (2022). Emerging issues in the psycho-legal study of guilty pleas. In DeMatteo, D. & Scherr, K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. (2007). Cooperating or caving in: Are defense attorneys shrewd or exploited in plea bargaining negotiations. Marquette Law Review, 91(1), 145–162.Google Scholar
Sloan, N. (2021). County seeking seventh circuit judge: Backlog of cases leads to request. www.insidenova.com/headlines/prince-william-county-seeking-seventh-circuit-judge/article_71ea96d6-58bd-11ec-a7d9-3b6a69137a65.html.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I. (2020). Transparency in plea bargaining. Notre Dame Law Review, 96(1), 973–1024.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Vanover, J. W. (1998). Utilitarian analysis of the objectives of criminal plea negotiation and negotiation strategy choice. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1998(2), 183–192.Google Scholar
Wilford, M. W., Wells, G. L., & Frazier, A. (2021). Plea-bargaining law: The impact of innocence, trial penalty, and conviction probability on plea outcomes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09564-y.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2016). Defense attorney bias and the rush to the plea. University of Kansas Law Review, 65(2), 271–326.Google Scholar
Zottoli, T. M., Daftary-Kapur, T., Edkins, V. A., et al. (2019). State of the states: A survey of statutory law, regulations and court rules pertaining to guilty pleas across the United States. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(4), 388–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2413.Google Scholar
Zottoli, T. M., Daftary-Kapur, T., Winters, G. M., & Hogan, C. (2016). Plea discounts, time pressures, and false-guilty pleas in youth and adults who pleaded guilty to felonies in New York City. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(3), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000095.Google Scholar